↓ Skip to main content

The independence of expression and identity in face-processing: evidence from neuropsychological case studies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The independence of expression and identity in face-processing: evidence from neuropsychological case studies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00770
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Bate, Rachel Bennetts

Abstract

The processing of facial identity and facial expression have traditionally been seen as independent-a hypothesis that has largely been informed by a key double dissociation between neurological patients with a deficit in facial identity recognition but not facial expression recognition, and those with the reverse pattern of impairment. The independence hypothesis is also reflected in more recent anatomical models of face-processing, although these theories permit some interaction between the two processes. Given that much of the traditional patient-based evidence has been criticized, a review of more recent case reports that are accompanied by neuroimaging data is timely. Further, the performance of individuals with developmental face-processing deficits has recently been considered with regard to the independence debate. This paper reviews evidence from both acquired and developmental disorders, identifying methodological and theoretical strengths and caveats in these reports, and highlighting pertinent avenues for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 79 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 28%
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 59%
Neuroscience 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2015.
All research outputs
#4,504,049
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,595
of 34,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,146
of 272,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#153
of 527 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 527 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.